My bets going back to November 09

[MMA_scientist]

These are my actual plays going back to UFC 105 (which is when I started it) 11/14/09. Everything here is verifiable on my site. I sometimes recommend something different than what I actually do, but I always post my true plays here.

For those that do not believe you can win betting favorites... my average line has been -233 (an implied win rate of 69.93%) but my actual win rate is 82% (for implied line of -455). That said, all my underdogs have won (but there were only 3 of them).

Does anyone know how to calculate mathmatical edge? I am math deficient... is it as simple as 82% - 70% = 12% edge? That would be awesome and impossibly huge edge...


wins

Maia def Miller @ 5u @ -300 = + 1.66
Soszynski def Bonnar 3u @ -140 = + 2.14
Dolloway def Reljic 1u @ +200 = +2.00
Bader def Jardine 5u @ -135 = + 3.7
Rockhold def Bradley 3u @ -220 = + 1.36
Jorgenson def George 5u @ -390 = + 1.28
Danzig def Buchholz 5u @ -280 = + 1.78
A. Miller def Lawlor 5u @ -250 = + 2.00
Dos Anjos def Bradley 5u @ -305 = + 1.63
C. Miller def Lauzon 5u @ -155 = + 3.22
Evans def Silva 5u @ -185 = + 2.7
J. Miller def Ludwig 5u @ -425 = + 1.17
Hieron def Riggs 3u @ -294 = + 1.02
Nelson def Schaub 5u @ -197 = + 2.53
Howard def Hallman 5u @ -250 = + 2.00
Palhares def Linhares 7u @ -340 = + 2.05
Fitch def Pierce 5u @ -345 = + 1.44
Hendricks def Funch 5u @ -365 = + 1.44
Florian def Guida 5u @ -194 = + 2.57
Jacare def Linland 5u @ -274 = + 1.82
Bisping def Kang 3u @ ev = + 3.00
Werdum def Silva 5u @ -150 = + 3.33
Koscheck def Johnson 5u @ +105 = + 5.00
_______________________________________________
Total + 49.4u average winning line = -216


Losses

Sotiroplous def Stevenson (-275) -5u
Beltran def Gracie (-425) -5u
Sonnen def Marquart (-275) -6u
Minowa def Sokoudjou (-370) -5u
Grove def Rosholt (-190) -5u
______________________________________________
Total -26u average losing line= -307


Overall +23.4 units average line overall -233

[Mr. IWS]

Impressive.

Did you start your blog back up?

[MMA_scientist]

Impressive.

Did you start your blog back up?


No. It is by invite only- it is a "private community" now only for a handful (of course you are welcome any time).

[Mr. IWS]

send me the address, your old one was bookmarked, but I deleted it.

[SPX]

No. It is by invite only- it is a "private community" now only for a handful (of course you are welcome any time).

Why did you do that?

[MMA_scientist]

No. It is by invite only- it is a "private community" now only for a handful (of course you are welcome any time).

Why did you do that?

lots of reasons. I actually shut it down entirely, then brought it back as a private club after thinking it over.

the two biggest reasons though, were that I think I was experiencing some "observer effect" (doing things differently because I was concerned about my record) and I was spending a lot of time responding to emails and comments. Internet fame is not something I have ever craved. Not to mention, I get a fair amount of hate mail when I lose.

So I wanted to separate the wheat from the chaff. No idiots allowed.

[SPX]

the two biggest reasons though, were that I think I was experiencing some "observer effect" (doing things differently because I was concerned about my record) and I was spending a lot of time responding to emails and comments. Internet fame is not something I have ever craved. Not to mention, I get a fair amount of hate mail when I lose.


Interesting. Do you know how many hits you were getting or how wide your audience was?

I hear you on the hate mail. I Just watching people react to Performify is proof enough for me about how fickle people are. Bettors need to learn to own their bets. I've followed others' advice before and sometimes it hasn't worked out for me. I didn't blame the person who advised me though. I know that ultimately it was my decision.

That's actually one reason that I haven't been totally gung ho about doing public write ups and that sort of thing. Sure, you're everyone's best friend while you're winning, but if you lose then you're the devil.

[MMA_scientist]

^^ very true. But as you can see, I was winning, alot. Some people would jump in right before a loss and then cry about it. I told my readers that I was going to hit a losing streak eventually, and that I would not continue to win 11:1 like I was before 109. But they don't listen. Honestly seeing that Performity thread influenced me. What does he get out of it? Of course, he doesnt do very well, so I also stated he should hang it up. When I announced I was shutting it down, several people went apeshit... you would think they were paying me or something. Funny how quickly people get entitled to something.

I installed analytics and I was getting about 400 hits per day on average. But I just got added to the blogroll at a site, and I could see that I was about to start getting a lot more hits... so I just decided I did not want to go that direction.

[SPX]

When I announced I was shutting it down, several people went apeshit... you would think they were paying me or something. Funny how quickly people get entitled to something.

Why don't they just learn to analyze fights on their own? I certainly think there's something liberating about the fact that I seem to be good enough at this to be able to rely on my own abilities to be profitable. (My last three events have all be negative though, so I'm starting to experience self-doubt. Both Marquardt and Torres fucked my shit up big time.) I would not want to have to rely on someone else for that.


I installed analytics and I was getting about 400 hits per day on average. But I just got added to the blogroll at a site, and I could see that I was about to start getting a lot more hits... so I just decided I did not want to go that direction.

That's quite a few hits just for one day. How did you initially advertise your blog? Did you not have any desire to turn it into a commercial venture and try to make some real money off of it?

[MMA_scientist]

I never advertised it. I made a few threads on Sherdog and a few of my regulars hace Sherdog signatures with my blog... It was in my signature here, and i was added to the blogroll at mmamoneyline, for free in a link exchange. That is it. Word spreads fast when there is free shit on the internet.

Nah, I never cared about being a real website. It is just a free blogspot... I considered adding adsense to it, but I read up on it and don't think I could have made more than a few bucks a month. I would rather just have the ease of reading without the ads for that.

As for becoming a pay service, no. I never have considered that, and never will.

[MMA_scientist]

Why don't they just learn to analyze fights on their own? I certainly think there's something liberating about the fact that I seem to be good enough at this to be able to rely on my own abilities to be profitable. (My last three events have all be negative though, so I'm starting to experience self-doubt. Both Marquardt and Torres fucked my shit up big time.) I would not want to have to rely on someone else for that.



I totally agree... that is the whole allure. Don't get me wrong, if I could find someone I believed could beat a sport, I would coattail them for a while. But ultimately, you want the freedom of knowing YOU have an edge.

But some people are stupid, so what are you going to do.

As for your current negative variance, hang in there. I am trying to make more bets to let my edge play out. I recently bet on Strikeforce Challengers and WEC which I never used to bet. I don't know whether you have an edge or not, but I suspect you do. Keeping track like I do really helps me see exactly what I need to do. For example, all my losses came in on heavy favorites... so I am trying to bet as much on the smallish favorites as I do on the -300 guys...

Like always though, my whole philosophy revolves around minimizing negative variance to avoid going on tilt. I think people vastly overestimate thier own control over their emotions.

[Svino]

Hey guys, new here. Just checking out the place on Scientist's rec.


Does anyone know how to calculate mathmatical edge? I am math deficient... is it as simple as 82% - 70% = 12% edge? That would be awesome and impossibly huge edge...

For a normal betting event, edge is usually defined as (Win %) / (Implied Win %) - 1. [Equivalently: Win prob * decimal odds -1] In this case, 0.82 / 0.70 - 1 = 0.171, so just over a 17% edge.

However, I am not sure how well this concept is applied to a long string of bets made with different odds. For example, I don't know exactly how you calculated your "average line", but at a minimum, you would want to be averaging the implied probabilities, not the moneyline odds or the decimal odds.

[SPX]

For a normal betting event, edge is usually defined as (Win %) / (Implied Win %) - 1. [Equivalently: Win prob * decimal odds -1] In this case, 0.82 / 0.70 - 1 = 0.171, so just over a 17% edge.


You lost me. . . Pretty much immediately. . .

[Luke]

For a normal betting event, edge is usually defined as (Win %) / (Implied Win %) - 1. [Equivalently: Win prob * decimal odds -1] In this case, 0.82 / 0.70 - 1 = 0.171, so just over a 17% edge.


You lost me. . . Pretty much immediately. . .


SPX SPX SPX.Just take the odds they'll win divided the implied win % and subtract 1

If you bet 15 fights and the average odds of those 15 is -233 thats an implied win % of 70% then you take the % you are actually winning (ex: if you went 11-4 in the 15 bets) thats a win % of 73 % .Then you take .73 divid by .70 which is 1.04 then you subtract 1 from that which is .04 .So you have a 4% edge over the odds you are betting

got it now?Or maybe I dont got it

[Svino]

You lost me. . . Pretty much immediately. . .

OK, let me clarify.

Suppose I see odds that suggest a fighter should have an 80% chance of winning (i.e. -400), but I am confident that he really has a 90% chance. Then my "edge" is: 0.9/0.8 - 1 = 0.125. So I have a 12.5% edge. This means that on average, for every unit I bet, I expect to see a 0.125 unit profit.

The reason that I said edge was an iffy concept to apply to a string of bets, is because if you have many bets made with different odds, it really matters which fights you are winning and losing. You could be showing a great average edge and still be hemorrhaging money.

And for "average odds", I think the problems are clear if you make two bets: one at -200 and one at +200, and try to average it to zero. That's why you would need to use percent odds, if you were going to do this at all.

[SPX]

I appreciate both you guys trying to help me understand . . . but perhaps I should clarify that I am absolutely terrible at math and my mind shuts down as soon as I see numbers. In terms of gambling, it's actually the one area where I am completely lacking.

[MMA_scientist]

Hey guys, new here. Just checking out the place on Scientist's rec.


Does anyone know how to calculate mathmatical edge? I am math deficient... is it as simple as 82% - 70% = 12% edge? That would be awesome and impossibly huge edge...

For a normal betting event, edge is usually defined as (Win %) / (Implied Win %) - 1. [Equivalently: Win prob * decimal odds -1] In this case, 0.82 / 0.70 - 1 = 0.171, so just over a 17% edge.

However, I am not sure how well this concept is applied to a long string of bets made with different odds. For example, I don't know exactly how you calculated your "average line", but at a minimum, you would want to be averaging the implied probabilities, not the moneyline odds or the decimal odds.


Awesome, thank you so much.

I calculated my average line by adding up all the lines and then dividing them by the number of fights... The average implied probabilty would be about 70% (-233 is 69.93% implied probability if I am not mistaken). Is that wrong? I do math at about the 4th grade level so anything I do is extremely rudimentary.

Also, come back to my blog (I mean private community). You are the only poster that I did not have contact info for. I sent you a PM

[Svino]

I calculated my average line by adding up all the lines and then dividing them by the number of fights... The average implied probabilty would be about 70% (-233 is 69.93% implied probability if I am not mistaken). Is that wrong?

Unfortunately, yes. Moneyline odds were never meant to be averaged like that. You would have to use the implied probability odds for each fight individually.

Simple example: Suppose you bet on a bunch of fights at 50% odds (-100 moneyline) and an equal number of fights at 90% odds (-900 moneyline). In this case, you should expect to win 70% of the fights (50%+90% / 2). However if you average the moneyline odds, you get (-100 - 900) / 2 = -500, which converts to a probability of 83%. So basically, you'll get the wrong answer, and it can get even uglier if you try to average together favorites and underdogs. Notice that I could have just as easily used +100 and -900, to get a different (and also wrong) average of -400 -> 80%.

[triathlete]

So the moral of this is to always work in percentages, not lines? This is good info. . . I'm assuming that by working in percentages you can cover the entire range - favs and dogs?

[Svino]

So the moral of this is to always work in percentages, not lines? This is good info. . . I'm assuming that by working in percentages you can cover the entire range - favs and dogs?

Yeah. If you are writing a computer program (as I think you indicated you were) that is going to take moneyline odds as an input, you need to do something like an if/then/else to handle the favorites and underdogs separately, since they're two different formulas. Then depending on exactly what you're doing, you probably want to either convert to percent odds, or decimal odds (which are 1 / percent odds). For straight averaging as discussed above, you want percent odds.

[MMA_scientist]

Yeah. If you are writing a computer program (as I think you indicated you were) that is going to take moneyline odds as an input, you need to do something like an if/then/else to handle the favorites and underdogs separately, since they're two different formulas. Then depending on exactly what you're doing, you probably want to either convert to percent odds, or decimal odds (which are 1 / percent odds). For straight averaging as discussed above, you want percent odds.

"Check out the big brains on Brad."

Out of curiosity, what is your background?

[Ludo]

You can't tell? He's the guy that movie "Good Will Hunting" was based off of. But seriously, thats some pretty interesting stuff. Where did you learn all that?

[Svino]

My background is in physics. Also, I was raised by mathematicians, which is a little like the academic version of being "raised by wolves".

[MMA_scientist]

My background is in physics. Also, I was raised by mathematicians, which is a little like the academic version of being "raised by wolves".

That is crazy. This conversation is about as close to physics or mathmatics as I ever get. And honestly, it is hard for me. I feel like I should relinquish my user name and fall on my sword in shame.

There is this whole other world of smart people out there...